From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marvin24@gmx.de (Marc Dietrich) Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 09:53:55 +0200 Subject: How to encode being an I2C slave in DT? In-Reply-To: <20150506065928.GP25193@pengutronix.de> References: <1427745615-5428-1-git-send-email-danindrey@mail.ru> <20150505105513.GA1841@katana> <20150506065928.GP25193@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <3394114.re5da8pjTi@fb07-iapwap2> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2015, 08:59:28 schrieb Uwe Kleine-K?nig: > Hello, > > On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:55:13PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > So what about adding a new property "i2c-slave-reg"? This does not only > > prevent the confusion above, but also makes it very clear that this node > > is an I2C slave without the need to encode that somehow in the > > compatible property (although it probably should be described there as > > well, still). > > I admit I didn't follow the discussions referenced in the footnotes, but > I wonder if the slave part should be added to the device tree at all. > AFAICT it could (and so should) be completely userspace-defined which > slave driver is used on which address. I imagine that for most > controllers the bus addresses to use can be chosen more or less freely. > So what am I missing? if you had read the footnotes you would know :-) Our usecase is connect an embeedded controller via i2c to the host soc, similar to cros-ec, but here the ec is the i2c master. The ec connects keyboard, mouse, pwrmngt, and other stuff, for which the drivers are best implemented in kernel code AFAIK. Marc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: